SCOTUSBlog

DECEMBER 19, 2022

Share Nineteen states came to the Supreme Court on Monday, asking the justices to keep in place a Trump-era policy that allows immigration officials to quickly expel migrants seeking asylum at the U.S. The justices have already grappled with controversial immigration policies twice this year. immigration court.

Court 130

Court Immigration Government Litigating 130

SCOTUSBlog

JANUARY 7, 2022

immigration court. After Texas and Missouri challenged that decision, a federal district court vacated the secretary’s termination, in part on the administrative-law ground that the decision was insufficiently explained. Issue : Whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Lynch v. In her cert petition, the U.S.

Laws 131

Laws Immigration Court Legal 131

JURIST

JUNE 15, 2022

The US Supreme Court on Wednesday dismissed a case in which Republican-led states were attempting to defend a Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration declined to do so. In a brief order, the court dismissed Arizona v.

Immigration 104

Immigration Court Government Court Rules 104

JonathanTurley

FEBRUARY 5, 2024

The seeds of this disaster were planted by the Supreme Court over a decade ago, in Arizona v. In that case, a 5-3 majority ruled against a state seeking to enforce immigration laws in light of what it described as a vacuum of federal action. They have often found the courts closed to them. if not earlier.

Immigration 60

Immigration Court Government Laws 60

SCOTUSBlog

JULY 21, 2022

Share The Supreme Court will again weigh the executive branch’s authority to set immigration policy as some red states claim that the Biden administration’s enforcement decisions are too lax. The justices will hear the case in late November without waiting for a federal appeals court to weigh in.

Immigration 145

Immigration Court Government Court Rules 145

JURIST

FEBRUARY 24, 2022

The US Supreme Court heard oral argument Wednesday in a dispute over whether a group of states, led by Arizona, can intervene to defend an immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration declined to do so. Wolf, a case pertaining to the enforcement of the 2019 rule.

Immigration 104

Immigration Court Government Court Rules 104

JonathanTurley

JULY 9, 2022

Below is my column in the Hill on the effort to declare an “invasion” along the Texas border to allow the state to take greater control along the border to stem the flow of illegal immigrants. Greg Abbott signed an order allowing Texas law enforcement to return illegal immigrants apprehended in the state back to the U.S.

Immigration 33

Immigration Government Court Laws 33

ClimateChange-ClimateLaw

AUGUST 4, 2021

Washington Supreme Court Said Climate Activist Was Entitled to Present Necessity Defense Based on Evidence that Legal Alternatives Were Not “Truly Reasonable”. Ninth Circuit Affirmed Rejection of NEPA Challenges to Immigration Policies. United States. United States , No. 1:21-cv-01560 (D. filed June 9, 2021). filed June 9, 2021).

Court 40

Court Litigating Litigation Government 40

SCOTUSBlog

FEBRUARY 22, 2022

Share On Wednesday, the Supreme Court will hear oral argument in a dispute over whether a group of states, led by Arizona, can defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration declined to do so. The oral argument in Arizona v. immigration court.

Immigration 100

Immigration Legal Legal Government 100

SCOTUSBlog

FEBRUARY 23, 2022

Share The Supreme Court heard oral argument on Wednesday in a case involving whether a group of states can defend a contentious Trump-era immigration policy known as the “public charge” rule after the Biden administration refused to do so. After nearly 90 minutes of debate in Arizona v.

Immigration 97

Immigration Court Administrative Law Government 97

SCOTUSBlog

JUNE 23, 2022

Two lower courts had rejected the legislators’ request, reasoning that the state’s Democratic attorney general and the board of elections were already defending the law, but the justices reversed those rulings. And in Arizona v. The justices ultimately dismissed the case for procedural reasons without deciding it.

Laws 140

Laws Court Attorney Litigating 140